Why a Sacrifice if Calvinism is True?

Lon

Well-known member
In my Christian opinion:
of course not! GOD did not ordain our evil! All evil is produced / created by the free will decision of the person. That is why inherited sin is such a blasphemy.
Ordaining, simply means 'organizing.' All messes need organized thus, yes, God organizes all things but one may read "put it toghether, all of it." It'd be like coming into an office where everything is chaotic and me taking the job to clean it up, then someone coming in and suggesting that I 'ordained all of this.' In a sense, yes, but not my preference, just my pleasure to make it right.

By analogy, this is about what most Calvinists mean by 'ordaining' (organizing what was a mess). Yes, I agree with all of my detractors that God was there when the mess was made, but it was made by sin, not God. He rather 'ordained' it, if that makes sense. If not, I too understand some of the dilemma with all involved. Matthew 13:9 to me, is God's brief answer/explanation.


Let's see if you hold to that:

Does he control how many milliseconds will be in a child porn video?



I see you using the word "eternal." By "eternal" do you mean "timeless"? Because eternal does not mean timeless. It means unending duration.

So I ask again, rephrasing my question:

Was God sovereign before He created?



So let's use your definition this time. I'll ask a question, then I have a follow-up question.

Did God ordain all things?



Guess that answers my question, so here's my follow-up:

Did God ordain each pedophile to be a pedophile, and for those who make such videos, did God ordain how long each of them would be down to the picosecond?
Matthew 13:9 Doesn't God see the video being made? How is this Calvinist-specific? It is simply moving 'when' around, like getting caught up in details when answering the actual question is more important. Yes, God sees and CAN stop it. Why doesn't He - even if you are an Open Theist? Why doesn't He? What is happening? I believe, on this particular, that it just has to be its own question in a theology thread because it demands scriptures, not whether someone is Open or Calvinist or Catholic. It is the "Why atrocity, why sin?" question.

If your answer is anything other than yes to both parts of that question, then your above statement, "All creatures/creation [are] subject to an ordained destiny" is falsified, because that would mean that all creatures/creation are NOT ordained nor destined to be that way.

If your answer IS yes, then the god you worship is not the God of the Bible, because such things DO NOT COME from the mind, heart, and soul of God Almighty, and to say they do is BLASPHEMY.
I think if you you are correct that ordain and desire are interchangeable, then I believe you are correct. As far as some Calvinists, you are correct. Most of us simply say that God's ordination is "how He is going to work through our fallen state to ensure the salvation of all that can/will be saved." In that, the Calvinist/other position, in Christ, is the same, but we view differently how He will get there, not that He will get that result.

In Him -Lon
 

Lon

Well-known member
Let's watch a Calvinist squirm

▲This▲ Why does one care if another 'squirms?' Its a 'me and MY theology' dog and pony show, if so, nothing of Savior lifted nor even scriptures but for proof-texting and as Truscott says: Eisegesis. Any maverick can do that. We need to get back to the thread question about Jesus' sacrifice (If I'm reading Poly's OP correctly). This isn't a 'Let's sink Calvinism!' thread, but a 'why is this?' thread, correct? The need for the thread is ended as being 'honest' at that point. We could just have a "Let's bash Calvinism together!" thread somewhere in exclusive and do away with pretenses. No scripture or question I've ever read dismantles Calvinism or causes any one of them to squirm. How could it? Isn't this rather an insecurity on the part of the presenter? How could it be otherwise. God and scriptures speak for Himself. One could simply post a scripture with a microphone drop, but this thread seems, to me, to ask a genuine question and seems also to imply that a genuine scriptural answer is expected?
 

blackbirdking

New member
Calvinism says that God would rather go through all the trouble of creating those whom He has elected to first live a life of sin on Earth before they could be saved and be with Him. He could have just created them to be with Him from the beginning as He did the angels. If you deny that He has the ability to do this, then you deny that He has all power. If He were to do this rather than predestine them to sin, He would not have to send HIs son to die for them. So according to Calvinism, God would prefer to watch His son die a miserable death for an elect group that He predestined to live on Earth and sin rather than just create the elect to be with Him from the get go. Why would He go through having to watch His son be tortured and murdered when in His Sovereignty, He could just have just skipped all this devastation?

If by Calvinism, you mean what Calvin taught, there is/was no reason for a sacrifice other than God's own pleasure. God predestined sin for His pleasure, He predestined suffering for His pleasure, He predestined damnation for His pleasure, and predestined that all these things that He predestined were/are very good. Hence, you, in your inability to comprehend/accept that God would do that and still be trustworthy, righteous, holy, loving, and caring about sparrows (which are worth much less than a man), yes you, should still trust Him because you just might be one of the "elect"; in fact, if you indeed do not trust Him, it's because your damnation is predetermined!

You see, Calvin realized that people would ask question like you do, and ultimately, Calvinists say things like, "Who are you that you would question "Almighty God'?

There is a host of 'watered down Calvinism', people who reject parts of what Calvin taught, but a TULIP Calvinist does not need a sacrifice except for God's pleasure; the rest falls into place to reveal the true character of a Calvinist's God.

Ps. You mentioned Calvinism and a Calvinist might take offense that you singled them out; however, you have good reason to do so.
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
God predestined sin for His pleasure, He predestined suffering for His pleasure, He predestined damnation for His pleasure, and predestined that all these things that He predestined were/are very good.

Absolutely wrong!

”Predestination” is God’s judgment determining the (eternal) end of those who do right and/or wrong, but God is NOT the cause of the wrongs His creatures willfully commit; nor does He find pleasure in all the death those wrongs produce.

However, God IS the sole cause of any righteousness done by His creatures, and these elect souls who manifest the good fruits of His Spirit, are judged and predestined to eternal life by and according to His good pleasure.

You apparently are erroneously convoluting cause & effects with God’s predestined judgments upon all such.
 

blackbirdking

New member
Absolutely wrong!

”Predestination” is God’s judgment determining the (eternal) end of those who do right and/or wrong, but God is NOT the cause of the wrongs His creatures willfully commit; nor does He find pleasure in all the death those wrongs produce.

However, God IS the sole cause of any righteousness done by His creatures, and these elect souls who manifest the good fruits of His Spirit, are judged and predestined to eternal life by and according to His good pleasure.

You apparently are erroneously convoluting cause & effects with God’s predestined judgments upon all such.

Ah, thanks for the correction; but are you saying that Calvin did not teach that Adam's eating of the tree was
established or decided in advance by God? And that Adam was free to choose to not eat from the tree?
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
"Time" is part of creation.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

The Bible says God created the heavens and the earth, and the seas, and all that is within them.

That means He wasn't eternally creating. That means sequence, and sequence means time.

Meaning God did things IN SEQUENCE.

There is no time in the eternal state.

There's no such thing as the "eternal state."

God does things in sequence, literally.

God did not create everything at once, he created over the course of 6 days, and then rested on the 7th.

"Timelessness" is the definition of eternity that has no beginning nor end.

To have no beginning or end would imply that there is a "before the present" and "after the present," a sequence, which is a description of time.

Which means that you're literally contradicting yourself when you say "timelessness has no beginning or end, because to have no beginning or end would imply that there is a "before" and an "after."

The REAL definition of eternity is "unending duration," or, "an infinite sequence of moments that has neither beginning nor end."

Does God possess a beginning or an end?

God is the Uncaused Cause. He has no beginning.

And since I think I know where you're going with this, let me stop you there:

Having no beginning does not mean timelessness, it just means that God has always (a time word) existed.

Do you know what a "ray" is, in geometry?

This is a ray.

----------------------------------------------------->

Do you know what a line is?

This is a line.

<---------------------------------------------------->

A ray is simply half of a line.

If you think of time as a line that continues on forever in both directions, the past is the half of the line that terminates at the present.

In other words, you are here:

<-----------------------*---------------------------->

God has existed from the past to the present

<-----------------------*................................

Exists now.

...........................*................................

And will exist forever more.

...........................*---------------------------->

In other words:

God is, was, and always will be.

God crossed infinite time.


Misconception 4: God cannot cross an actual infinity: Because it would take infinitely long to cross an infinity, many philosophers claim that not even God could cross an infinity. Thus, they claim if He lived "in time", then regardless of how long He has existed, the Lord Himself could never reach any particular point in time, let alone reach "the present", because He would have to cross an infinity to arrive at this (or that) moment.

On How to Cross an Infinity: However, consider the relationship between two valid arguments: everything that has a beginning has a cause and likewise, nothing that has a beginning can cross an infinity. We theists can learn to avoid the kind of error that atheist Bertrand Russel made regarding that first valid argument, when He asks well then, Who made God? He's ignoring the ubiquitous observation that anything that "has a beginning" must have a cause. Consider now the second valid argument above, that theists must take care to handle properly. Nothing that "has a beginning" can cross an infinity. God, though, has existed through the "beginningless past". Though we reject much of Wes Morriston's reasoning in his paper Beginningless Past, Endless Future, and the Actual Infinite published in 2010 by the journal Faith and Philosophy (Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 439-450), we agree with his biblical conclusion, that God has existed through the beginningless past. The vast majority of Christian theologians though, who reject that God has existed through the beginningless past, typically do so by being inconsistent. Therefore their objection is easily neutralized and then answered. For example, William Lane Craig rejects the possibility of an actual infinity. (See his reformulated medieval Islamic Kalam cosmological argument.) So along with many theologians he disagrees with the biblical argument presented above of: "from everlasting to everlasting", and thus he denies that God has existed throughout time immemorial, infinitely into the past. For if an actual infinity cannot exist, Craig argues, then even God cannot cross one. (Aristotle, for example, claimed that the infinite is never actual; he, however, did not know God.)

Inconsistency: Yet while Craig doesn't admit it, he himself believes that God has crossed an actual infinity. For God's thoughts are actual. They are not merely theoretical. They are actual. They are His thoughts. And Craig believes that God has had exhaustive foreknowledge of a kingdom that never ends. That of course would require divine knowledge of an infinite future, with this knowledge comprised of actual thoughts in God's mind. (This would be like God starting at zero and having counted to infinity.) Further, because Craig happens to hold the untenable, absurd, and grotesque belief that God knows every possible future, that philosophical claim requires God to cross an infinite number of actual infinities. (This is because there are an infinite number of possible futures. Forget about Chuck Norris doing so twice, this amounts to a claim that God counted to infinity an infinite number of times.) Instead, in actuality, God has once crossed the single infinity of the beginningless past.

Assuming the Conclusion: Using a typically unstated assumption, an argument against God's "beginningless past" insists that He could not have crossed an infinite past because regardless of how much time has actually passed, "infinity" would require passage of even more time to arrive at any given moment. The unstated assumption in this objection however is that it assumes its conclusion, namely, that this past period must have had a beginning. For this objection essentially asserts that this past period that God has existed through is of finite duration. Again, theologians mishandle this issue the same way that atheists mishandle the argument that everything that has a beginning has a cause, as when Russell asked, "Well then who made God?", assuming he falsified Christianity or at least disproved the argument. Of course, on its face, Russell has done neither because his application falsifies only the pagan cosmogonies that originate their gods, but he leaves untouched the eternal God of Scripture. Likewise, theologians draw an unsound conclusion when they (inherently) take the valid argument that nothing that has a beginning can cross an infinity and misuse it to claim that, "God can't cross an infinity." If there is a valid theological system that denies God's ability to cross an actual infinity, then it would not support a philosophical claim that contradicts its own system (see Inconsistency, just above), and neither will it merely assume its conclusion.

Mathematics 101: Let's consider an analogy, from geometry, and then an excuse, from mathematics. As an illustration, a geometrical line is infinite in both directions whereas a ray has a terminal point yet is infinite in one direction. For our analogy, consider the ray as extending through eternity past and being terminated in God's present. For the present is where God lives, in the fullness of time so to speak, with God's past illustrated by that ray. Consider also that Georg Cantor died only in 1918. Perhaps there is a (weak) excuse then for theologians who failed to understand God existing in time, partly because they lived prior to this mathematician who taught the world so much about infinity. (Remember that mathematicians had problems even with the concept of negative numbers until the 17th and 18th centuries, let alone with infinity.) So Craig's Islamic theologians and countless Christian theologians (including Augustine, even though he was right to apply the concept of infinity to God), could hardly have comprehended the concept that God could have existed for an infinite time and that daily He also could add more time to that same infinity. God has done this however. For He must increase! So the terminal point on that divine ray has moved, for example, more than two thousand years since the moment of the Incarnation, something that few could have conceived of throughout much of human history.

Forward Looking: Finally, as Solomon wrote, God put eternity into our hearts. Yet unlike God, our life is not endless in two directions but only in one, namely, into the future. So to use our analogy again, in reverse, you are like a "ray" that begins at a point (of conception) and then proceeds forever (Eccl. 3:11). Thus, a man does not "enter eternity" at his death, but at the moment of conception. (Likewise, King David wrote that, "in Your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me, when as yet there were none of them." This passage did not refer to the days till his death but to the days till his brith, that is, to fetology. Regarding the developmental biology that God designed for the human fetus, Psalm 139 refers not to the days of an entire life but to the days in the womb.) Therefore, our eternal soul provides for us a context in which we can develop a gut feel for what it means to live forever (throughout eternity future). Yet we lack the divine intestinal fortitude, so to speak, that we would need in order to relate to His beginningless past. So because the above arguments falsify atemporality, one realizes that if God could not cross infinity, then He could not have existed for eternity. But He has. In summary, by the Scriptural teachings regarding time (see above) and because time could not have been created (see above), we therefore teach that God's goings forth are from of old, from everlasting, from ancient times, the everlasting God who continues forever, from before the ages of the ages, He who is and who was and who is to come, who remains forever, the everlasting Father, whose years never end, from everlasting to everlasting, and of His kingdom there will be no end.


https://kgov.com/time

JudgeRightly: Did God ordain all things?

So God ordained sin?

Because "sin" is part of "all things."
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Your posts do not make me squirm at all Clete.

I do not post in reaction or in response to your opposition to “Calvinism” but simply to witness to Godly Truth as revealed in Holy Scripture.

Other readers who are given spiritual eyes to see,
and ears to hear, will recognize the Gospel I confess, according to the saving grace of God alone.

So be it . . .

This is you, squirming.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber

Why not what?

And no, I can believe HE controls our sin without being the author of that sin.

God controls sin?

Where in the Bible do you find that?

It is we ourselves in our enslavement to evil that produces the evil desire that drives us to sin, not GOD: GOD tempts no one!

Since HE allows evil, do you think HE cannot allow when it starts and when HE wants it to end? My goodness...

Are you an Arminian by chance?

In my Christian opinion:
of course not! GOD did not ordain our evil! All evil is produced / created by the free will decision of the person. That is why inherited sin is such a blasphemy.

Welcome to open theism.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
▲This▲ Why does one care if another 'squirms?'

Have you noticed that so far Nang has not responded to either my or Clete's questions since we started really digging into what he or she believes?

It's a good indication that a person is cornered and does not have any way to answer those questions without contradicting one's own position.

Its a 'me and MY theology' dog and pony show, if so, nothing of Savior lifted nor even scriptures but for proof-texting and as Truscott says: Eisegesis. Any maverick can do that. We need to get back to the thread question about Jesus' sacrifice (If I'm reading Poly's OP correctly). This isn't a 'Let's sink Calvinism!' thread, but a 'why is this?' thread, correct? The need for the thread is ended as being 'honest' at that point. We could just have a "Let's bash Calvinism together!" thread somewhere in exclusive and do away with pretenses. No scripture or question I've ever read dismantles Calvinism or causes any one of them to squirm. How could it? Isn't this rather an insecurity on the part of the presenter? How could it be otherwise. God and scriptures speak for Himself. One could simply post a scripture with a microphone drop, but this thread seems, to me, to ask a genuine question and seems also to imply that a genuine scriptural answer is expected?

What's going on is that Nang came to the rescue of Calvinism, but has so far failed in doing anything other than cornering him/herself with her own beliefs. It shows that Calvinism (or at the very least, Nang's preferred flavor of it) is false, and can safely be rejected as good theology.

If Calvinism is true, there's no reason for Christ's (or any, for that matter) sacrifice to God.
 

ttruscott

Well-known member
Yes, I agree with all of my detractors that God was there when the mess was made, but it was made by sin, not God. He rather 'ordained' it, if that makes sense.

No it does not... Far far too many old style and modern Calvinists define sovereignty as "nothing happens without it being caused to happen by GOD." No, such whitewash cannot stick to Calvinism, a whited sepulcher.

It seems to me that you also suspect such mitigation is wrong because you use a very stilted meaning of ordain:
Dictionary.com: verb (used with object): ORDAIN
- to invest with ministerial or sacerdotal functions; confer holy orders upon.
- to enact or establish by law, edict, etc.:to ordain a new type of government.
- to decree; give orders for: He ordained that the restrictions were to be lifted.
- (of God, fate, etc.) to destine or predestine: Fate had ordained the meeting.

verb (used without object)
- to order or command:

GOD did NOT decree; give orders for or destine or predestine or order or command any evil to come into existence by ay method whatsoever. Every doctrine based the least on the idea that HE did decree evil is blasphemous, based upon a lie...

imCo
 

ttruscott

Well-known member
If by Calvinism, you mean what Calvin taught, there is/was no reason for a sacrifice other than God's own pleasure. God predestined sin for His pleasure, He predestined suffering for His pleasure, He predestined damnation for His pleasure, and predestined that all these things that He predestined were/are very good.

IF GOD predestined some to eternal evil then HE also predestined them to suffer eternally in hell which contradicts scripture big time:
Ezekiel 18:23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. [Implied answer expected: NO!] Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?

Ezekiel 18:32 For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!

1 Timothy 2:4...who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Your contentions blaspheme HIS good name as proven by it contradicting scripture and the whole import of the meaning of our creation to be HIS Bride. And a WOE is in store for anyone who calls such speculations good! Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
 

ttruscott

Well-known member
However, God IS the sole cause of any righteousness done by His creatures...
While I accept that GOD is the sole cause of sinners turning from their addiction to evil and becoming righteous and holy, I cannot accept such a broad brush painting ALL holiness as due to HIS causing it. Even the holiness of HIS sinful good seed is established by training them in righteousness by painful discipline (Heb 12:5-11) which implies that they have a will freed from sin by their rebirth and their coming to holiness is by His training their free will to only choose righteousness.

Holiness, being in accord with GOD's character and purposes, must be a choice as sin/evil, rejecting either HIS character or purposes, must be a choice. A robot or automaton which by its creation does that which pleases the Lord is not holy, only its creator is holy.

The angels are said to be both holy and elect, words which depend on a free will choice to be true. Thus all the elect choose to be holy even though later some rebelled against HIS purposes and fell from their dedication of faith to become enslaved by sin.

IF God IS the sole cause of any righteousness done by His creatures by decree, not choice, then it behoves us to ask why does HE not cause this righteousness in all of HIS creation which HE says HE desires, 1 Timothy 2:4...who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Ah, thanks for the correction; but are you saying that Calvin did not teach that Adam's eating of the tree was
established or decided in advance by God? And that Adam was free to choose to not eat from the tree?

God ordained Adam would be created a intelligent, sentient, and willful creature, free to obey God's Law and Commands, but that Adam would surely fail to fully do so. Not because God caused Adam to disobey, but because God ordained the last Adam, Jesus Christ alone, would perfectly fulfill all God's Law . . . to His glory.

Man was created in the image of God, but mankind was not created to be equal with God.

Only by being justified by God's grace and gift of faith in the blood of Christ, will man realize a shared heavenly inheritance in Him. To His glory. Ephesians 1:11-14
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Have you noticed that so far Nang has not responded to either my or Clete's questions since we started really digging into what he or she believes?

It's a good indication that a person is cornered and does not have any way to answer those questions without contradicting one's own position.

So if I do not respond to you, I am guilty of error or crimes? Shades of Adam Shiff !! Ha . . .

I post to record the gospel according to grace and biblical revelation. I have been around TOL long enough to learn how futile it is to debate Open Theism/Arminianism/Dispensationalism.

My faith is the same faith held by born again believers since the time of Seth.

Only when God changes a heart and opens eyes to see and gives ears to hear, will souls respond to the saving faith Reformers confess. And I am always more than happy to answer questions directed to me in good faith.
 

ttruscott

Well-known member
Why not what?
You asked
Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
Does he control how many milliseconds will be in a child porn video? and I answered "Why not?" How can you not follow this???

God controls sin? Where in the Bible do you find that?
Of course HE does...HE restrained the evil Pharaoh had planned then at the right time HE allowed Pharaoh to proceed. When talking about the man of lawlessness, the son of destruction, to be revealed, it is written 2 Thessalonians 2:6 And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way.

Are you an Arminian by chance?
No. Let alone that this doctrine blasphemes HIS perfect loving patience, I see no ability for a free will within the words "enslaved to sin." No sinner has a free will until AFTER his rebirth to the Spirit of Christ. Therefore I reject Calvinism, Arminianism and open theology as man made doctrines trying to reconcile our being created as evl and some ending in hell without impugning GOD's righteousness. All orthodoxy fails...


Welcome to open theism.
No sir, no sinner has ability to make a free will decision.

Open Theism is the thesis that, because God loves us and desires that we freely choose to reciprocate His love, He has made His knowledge of, and plans for, the future conditional upon our actions. Though omniscient, God does not know what we will freely do in the future.

Change this to: Open Theism is the thesis that, because God loves us and desires that we freely choose to reciprocate His love, He has made His knowledge of, and plans for, the future conditional upon our CHOICES BY OUR FREE WILL. and

apply it to people who do indeed have a free will, ie who have not yet sinned by their free will and I will (probably) accept it but not as it is now, based upon the blasphemy of our evil being inherited from Adam as it is.
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Holiness, being in accord with GOD's character and purposes, must be a choice as sin/evil, rejecting either HIS character or purposes, must be a choice. A robot or automaton which by its creation does that which pleases the Lord is not holy, only its creator is holy.

Jesus taught that only God is holy and good. Thus, for a sinner to be made holy, it is necessary that sinner be changed in the heart and MADE holy through the presence, power, and indwelling of God's Holy Spirit.

And when the heart is FIRST made anew, the mind and will subsequently can choose righteousness over evil. One must be born again before he can exercise willful obedience.


IF God IS the sole cause of any righteousness done by His creatures by decree, not choice, then it behoves us to ask why does HE not cause this righteousness in all of HIS creation which HE says HE desires, 1 Timothy 2:4...who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

God is both loving and just.

Many souls have been made holy and righteous in Christ in order to demonstrate God's love and grace.

Many souls will pay the wages of sin outside of Christ in order to demonstrate God's Justice.

Almost every argument attempted against Calvinism and the doctrine of Godly Election/Predestination, is really an argument FOR Universalism.

And Universalism is untenable according to the Holy Scriptures.
 

Theo102

New member
I didn't ignore anything.
You ignored the issue of vowel pointing, and quoted the concordance as if the vowels were reliable.

So let's take a look at your translation...

"The heart rewards for all mankind, who can know it?"

HOW DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE?
It's talking about natural justice. Of course natural justice is anathema for Pauline Christianity, so this idea won't be well received.
 

Theo102

New member
You chose which vowel pointing to accept due to your prior commitment to your theology, not because it was proven to you by GOD.
Your idea of GOD is irrelevant. There's no reason from the context to use the negative interpretation of `aqob, by default interpretation looks to the positive meaning.

In other words your interpretation is by eisegesis because with NO VOWEL POINTING, the words support both, either, interpretation.
That's incorrect. There's only one natural meaning of anash, and it relates to people, not to wickedness as the vowel pointing sometimes implies.

If you check the interlinear you'l find that all of the supposed equivalent cases are not even the same word (2 Samuel 12:15 uses the niphal form).

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/605.htm

The Arabic cognate also agrees with the natural meaning of anash.
אנשׁ (compare Arabic
bdb006010.gif
be inclined to, friendly, social
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
▲This▲ Why does one care if another 'squirms?' Its a 'me and MY theology' dog and pony show, if so, nothing of Savior lifted nor even scriptures but for proof-texting and as Truscott says: Eisegesis. Any maverick can do that. We need to get back to the thread question about Jesus' sacrifice (If I'm reading Poly's OP correctly). This isn't a 'Let's sink Calvinism!' thread, but a 'why is this?' thread, correct? The need for the thread is ended as being 'honest' at that point. We could just have a "Let's bash Calvinism together!" thread somewhere in exclusive and do away with pretenses. No scripture or question I've ever read dismantles Calvinism or causes any one of them to squirm. How could it? Isn't this rather an insecurity on the part of the presenter? How could it be otherwise. God and scriptures speak for Himself. One could simply post a scripture with a microphone drop, but this thread seems, to me, to ask a genuine question and seems also to imply that a genuine scriptural answer is expected?
You haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about.

I, for one, couldn't possibly care less about your personal opinions about what I do, what I say, what effect it has or anything else. If you don't like my posts, don't read them. If you can refute a single syllable of the arguments I've made then I'll gladly engage the debate on equal terms. That is to say that I give respect to those who have earned it and ridicule and shame those who have earned that. Nang is a known liar who worships a Greek god the does not exist.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
You ignored the issue of vowel pointing, and quoted the concordance as if the vowels were reliable.
I ignored nothing.

You missed the point.

A point I made abundantly clear on my last post, which you completely ignored altogether.

It's talking about natural justice. Of course natural justice is anathema for Pauline Christianity, so this idea won't be well received.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
 
Top